JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)—By way of this writ petition, the petitioner-Employees'' Provident Fund Organization has prayed for the following relief: "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the orders dated 21.1.2008 passed in ATA No. 526/(17)/2007 by EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in case titled M/s. Him Neel Breweries Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization be set aside and quashed in the interest of law and justice being against the provisions of EPF & MP Act, 1952 and EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) 1997 or any other orders which this Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in the interest of law and justice." 2. The grievance which has been raised by way of present writ petition by the petitioner-Organization is that Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (DMG) passed an order dated 17.04.2007 (Annexure-A1) under the provisions of Sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "1952 Act") against respondent No. 1 on the subject "In the matter of levy of damages and interest on the delayed remittances of Provident Fund and other allied dues for the period of 07/99 to 06/02 by M/s. Him Neel Brewerries Vill Takiyan, P.O. Majra, Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour, H.P. having P.F. Code No. HP/18335" and ordered that an amount of Rs. 4629277/-, as levied by the said authority, be deposited by respondent No. 1 within 15 days of the receipt of the said order, failing which, the amount be recovered under the provisions of Sections 8-B to 8-G of the said Act. Respondent No. 1 had assailed this order by filing a time barred appeal before respondent No. 3- Tribunal by way of ATA No. 526/(17)/2007. Alongwith the appeal, respondent No. 1 also filed an application for interim directions, on which respondent No. 3-Tribunal passed the following order on 21.01.2008: "The counsel for the appellant filed an application for interim stay order against the impugned order dated 17.04.07. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal has already been admitted. The operation of the impugned order is stayed subject to deposition of 25% of the 14-B assessed amount with the respondent within four weeks from today. Matter be listed before the Registrar for 03.06.2008 for completing the service and pleadings." 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal has already been admitted. The operation of the impugned order is stayed subject to deposition of 25% of the 14-B assessed amount with the respondent within four weeks from today. Matter be listed before the Registrar for 03.06.2008 for completing the service and pleadings." 3. As per the petitioner, while passing impugned order dated 21.01.2008 (Annexure-A) and while entertaining the appeal so filed by respondent No. 1 against order dated 17.04.2007, respondent No. 3 lost sight of the fact that the appeal which was filed by respondent No. 1 against order dated 17.04.2007 was not maintainable, being beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees'' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Rules"), which are statutory Rules and that the said appellate authority in law had no right to entertain an appeal which was filed beyond the period of limitation, as is provided under the said Rules. On these bases, it has been urged by way of this writ petition by the petitioner-Organization that impugned order dated 21.01.2008 be quashed and set aside. 4. Though respondents No. 1 and 2 have been duly served by way of substituted service, however, as no one has put in appearance on their behalf, accordingly they are proceeded against ex parte. 5. Mr. Mahajan has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 7 of 1997 Rules, which provides as under: "7. Fee, time for filing appeal, deposit of amount due on filing appeal.- (1) Every appeal filed with the Registrar shall be accompanied by a fee of Rupees five hundred to be remitted in the form of Crossed Demand Draft on a nationalized bank in favour of the Registrar of the Tribunal and payable at the main branch of that Bank at the station where the seat of the said Tribunal situate. (2) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central Government or any other authority under the Act, may within 60 days from the date of issue of the notification/order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. (2) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central Government or any other authority under the Act, may within 60 days from the date of issue of the notification/order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. Provided that the Tribunal may if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, extend the said period by a further period of 60 days. Provided further that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless he has deposited with the Tribunal a Demand Draft payable in the Fund and bearing 75% of the amount due from him as determined under Rule 7-A. Provided also that the Tribunal may for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under Rule 7A." 6. On the strength of these Rules, it has been submitted by Mr. Mahajan that an order passed by an authority under Section 14B of the Act can be assailed by way of filing an appeal under Section 7(1) of the Act read with 1997 Rules within a period of 60 days from the date of issue of the order. Mr. Mahajan has also drawn the attention of this Court to proviso attached to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, wherein it is further provided that in case the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, then the period to file the appeal can be further extended by a period of 60 days. On the basis of said provisions, it has been urged by Mr. Mahajan that in any eventuality, appellate Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal which is filed after more than 120 days of the date of issuance of the order concerned, which fact has been ignored by respondent No. 3 while entertaining the appeal. Mr. Mahajan has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure A-5, which is a communication addressed to respondent No. 1 dated 18.04.2007, which reads as under: "To M/s. Him Neel Breweries, Vill. Takiyan, P.O. Majra, Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour (H.P.) Subject:- Final Order under section 14-B & 7Q of the EPF and MP Act, 1952. Sir, Please find enclosed herewith order dated 17.04.2007 in respect of above establishment for necessary compliance. Encls.:-As above. Takiyan, P.O. Majra, Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour (H.P.) Subject:- Final Order under section 14-B & 7Q of the EPF and MP Act, 1952. Sir, Please find enclosed herewith order dated 17.04.2007 in respect of above establishment for necessary compliance. Encls.:-As above. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Legal)" 7. During the course of arguments, Mr. Mahajan has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure A-2, which is also an order passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (DMG) against respondent No. 1 under Sections 14B and 7Q of the 1952 Act. Mr. Mahajan has submitted that in the garb of the pendency of this writ petition, respondent No. 3 is not deciding said appeal also in which also stay has been granted by respondent No. 3 against the order dated 26.11.2007. 8. I have heard Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has also made available the relevant record of the case for the perusal of this Court. 9. Apparently, the order which was passed by the competent authority under Sections 14B and 7Q of the 1952 Act is dated 17.04.2007 (Annexure A-1). A perusal of Annexure A-5, which is a communication addressed by the petitioner to respondent No. 1, dated 18.04.2007 makes it clear that order dated 17.04.2007 was communicated to respondent No. 1 for necessary compliance by the petitioner. 10. Though it is not evident from the material on record as to when was the appeal actually filed before respondent No. 3, however, on instructions, Mr. Mahajan has stated that the appeal was filed beyond the period of 60+60 days, i.e., 120 days in total from communication dated 18.04.2007, vide which order dated 17.04.2007 was communicated to respondent No. 1. Mr. Mahajan further submitted that though the actual date of filing of the appeal is presently not in his knowledge, but subject to records, the appeal probably was filed somewhere in the month of December, 2007 or thereafter. 11. Be that as it may, in case the appeal has been filed by respondent No. 1 before respondent No. 3 beyond the period of 120 days, as has been provided in Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules, then respondent No. 3, in law, neither can entertain the same nor can adjudicate upon the same on merit. 11. Be that as it may, in case the appeal has been filed by respondent No. 1 before respondent No. 3 beyond the period of 120 days, as has been provided in Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules, then respondent No. 3, in law, neither can entertain the same nor can adjudicate upon the same on merit. It goes without saying that when respondent No. 3-Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal beyond the period of limitation provided in Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules, it has no authority in law to pass any interim order in the same. 12. However, in my considered view, whether or not the appeal was filed within the statutory period is an issue which at the first instance has to be decided by the statutory authority, i.e. respondent No. 3- Tribunal itself. 13. Therefore, in these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by passing the following directions: A. ATA No. 526 (17)/2007 shall be disposed of by respondent No. 3 within a period of three months from the date when the copy of this judgment is made available to respondent No. 3-Tribunal by the present petitioner. B. Respondent No. 3-Tribunal shall first adjudicate upon the maintainability of the appeal itself taking into consideration the objection which has been raised by the present petitioner about the appeal being filed beyond the period of limitation. C. Till the issue of limitation is decided by respondent No. 3-Tribunal, order dated 21.01.2008 (Annexure A1) shall remain eclipsed. D. Petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application before respondent No. 3, requesting respondent No. 3-Tribunal to decide the appeal pending before it, arising out of order dated 26.11.2017 (Annexure A-2), i.e., ATA No. 51(17)/2008. In case any such application is moved, then this Court hopes and trusts that learned Tribunal shall dispose of the said appeal also within the time as has been given to the said Tribunal for disposing of ATA No. 526 (17)/2007. 14. With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of, so also miscellaneous applications, if any.